web analytics

#ProfessionalVictim Gwyneth Paltrow Placing Blame without Taking Accountability-Again. #Paltrowing

#ProfessionalVictim Gwyneth Paltrow Placing Blame without Taking Accountability-Again. #Paltrowing

August 4, 2015

Why Gwyneth Paltrow should consider “conscious uncoupling” from business: ‪#‎Paltrowing‬

Checklist-of-Characteristic-of-The-Sociopathic-Business-Model (1)

Gwyneth Paltrow is at it again just in time to launch her new beauty line; but, not before she takes another page from The Sociopathic Business Model playbook as a Professional Victim who places blame without shame, remorse, guilt or accountability:

Taking credit or placing blame without taking accountability?

“When I announced that I was separating on the website, [Goopeditorial director Elise Loehnen] titled the piece ‘Conscious Uncoupling,’ and I had no idea,” Paltrow explains.

Abuser fall into two pathological categories under The Sociopathic Business Model™ Selective Tolerance or Professional Victims

Gwyneth Paltrow’s Brand is that of Professional Victim under The Sociopathic Business Model™

Paltrow called Carter (Vanity Fair) looking for advice because everyone on the internet, as usual, was being mean to her. Carter told her there was only one thing she could do to ensure Americans would like her again: get fat.

In October, Gwyneth called me. We talked for about 20 minutes about the story and her reaction, or over-reaction, to it. At one point, she asked my advice as to what to do to get the “haters” on her side. I suggested putting on 15 pounds. I joked that it works for me. She replied I had put on much more than that. Which I thought was fair and funny. Gawker

Paltrow’s company Goop and she as company Founder previously acknowledged she has what she calls “haters” or what this site calls Forced Accountability: exposing the negative truth others would rather remain hidden which in turn can hurt the business image and profits.  The fact there’s a pathological history of Paltrow’s glibly manipulating the facts while not recognizing the rights of others highlighted again in today’s blame of Goop employee Elise Loehnen for the “conscious uncoupling” statement without Paltrow taking any accountability is inconsistent & contradictory to a CEO of a company releasing such information stating that she had “no idea,”  only further validates Paltrow’s  lack of understanding why people actually dislike her.

I have no doubt Paltrow lacks the necessary creativity to turn the phrase “conscious uncoupling” on her own but highly doubt she didn’t approve it.  Initially, Paltrow took credit for other’s work and now is placing blame without taking accountability and this looks a lot like workplace abuse to me!

This again is another example of Branding vs Marketing where image is more important than ethical substance; and, why as a consultant I urge clients to stay clear of working with people who brand and personally won’t work with a company who brands.  Paltrow’s pathological history of unethical business behavior or employing tactics from The Socioapatic Business Model™ is so frequent this site often refers to it as: #Paltrowing.

GMO labeling foes: Gwyneth Paltrow has history of ‘nonsensical’ statements

“Paltrow is an interesting choice to serve as a lead spokesperson given her history of nonsensical, unscientific rantings,” wrote Claire Parker, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, a group that represents the food industry and opposes GMO labeling. Washington Post

Labeling for GMO foods is great, Paltrow as the spokeswoman for the cause is not-she’ll potentially damage their campaign.  It’s pretty bad when the competition the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food that opposes GMO labeling makes a valid point (not about labeling) but who’s championing their competition’s cause.

The bottom line is that companies which operate focused on branding, (image), and hypergrowth are more likely to commit fraud, which leads to employee job loss (due to mismanagement), investor loss (again due to mismanagement) and on the very severe ends consumer harm which costs taxpayers billions annually.  And, we’re now starting to see those negative trends in Paltrow’s Goop.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle website Goop ‘faces $1.6M in debt’ as it continues to lose money


No Comments

Post a Comment